[Ravioli]

I think everyone wants a good camera that's able to take sharp pictures with little or no noise. To be honest, take sharp photos isn't hard these days especially with image stabilization or if you just have steady hands or a tripod. I've been browsing through all my photos taken with various cameras and I came with a conclusion to judge a camera for its image quality.

The biggest problem I've encountered with today's point and shoot camera's is noise. I discovered that you can do one simple this to see if your camera passes the noise test. On a clear blue sky day, take some photos of a blue sky using the lowest ISO setting possible. Lowest ISO setting only makes the test fair because low ISO means low noise levels. View the photo on its "ACTUAL SIZE" setting. "Actual Size" is its original size and not full screen. If the blue isn't totally blue, like you see purples spots, red spots, grey spots, then you have noise. I can tell you that mid to high end SLRS usually pass this test easily. Most point and shoot camera fail this test. There are new many high end Canon and Panasonic point an shoot cameras that fail the test pretty badly.

Lots of megapixels + small sensors which is found on a lot of today's cameras = crappy image quality. Even with cameras with decent size sensors like the new Canon G10 can produce crappy photos so buyer beware. My Canon Powershot G6 passed the blue sky test because the megapixel and sensor size ratio fits the camera pefectly.

Believe me, this test really works and it accurately tells you if you're camera is capable of producing quality shots even for indoor portraits or any portraits in general.

Lastly, I have some high end point and shoot cameras that failed the test. I won't mention the models because I want to sell them. Believe me, this test is accurately measures the awesomeness or shoddiness or your camera's image quality capabilities.

[Vudoo4u2]

To be fair to you, ISO is just one of many performance/image quality traits that needs to be considered with any camera. It is not the end all be all test of IQ however, and sharpness doesnt stop with a steady shot, but rather the detail of the image in general, anyone can take a steady shot with a tripod, but you will see a difference in sharpness between a good camera/lens combo, and a not as good one if you nitpick

[Ravioli]

My blue sky test was meant for point and shoot cameras. On clear blue sky days, you can easily use low ISOs and get a great well exposed shot. The best way to easily examine a shot is to look at the blue sky to see if it's truly blue.

[Vudoo4u2]

even point and shoot cameras have a variety of lenses that they use. ISO is just 1 quality indicator, others could be color reproduction, lighting, per pixel sharpness etc...

the tests that are used on non-PS cameras, apply to PS cameras...ISO, is just 1 of those factors, so I wouldnt go telling people to go test the graininess of photos to see how good a camera is, because one camera might have slightly worse ISO performance, but much better sharpness of images, color reproduction, etc

[Ravioli]

There aren't a lot of point and shoot camera where you can change lenses. The two most popular ones are the Canon G series and Panasonic LX series. I can tell you that even if you change the lenses it won't improve the image quality however you will have a chance to make your images wider and zoom further.

[Vudoo4u2]

changing a lens to a better one can improve image quality if the glass is of better quality, but it depends on whether you are sensor limited or lens limited. With a PS camera, you are more than likely limited by the sensor, so changing a lens will not yield too much better image, but its not impossible

but that wasnt my pt

iso is 1 factor, sharpness etc are other factors, you cant just judge a camera by its iso abilities

[sc_tr0jan_m3]

haha... i lol'ed... i'm with vudoo on this one

[UdubBadger]

well if it says Nikon on it, that'd be a good indication its a POS...

[rodi]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

well if it says Nikon on it, that'd be a good indication its a POS...

you poor soul.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by rodi

you poor soul.

oh no its ok... I own a Canon, so I'm not one of those poor Nikon owners who need any sympathy.

[rodi]

no, i just looked at your photos. you definitely need the sympathy.

[UdubBadger]

just think how bad they'd be with a Nikon!

[rodi]

actually, it wouldn't matter what kind of camera you used. ;]
or anyone, for that matter.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by rodi

or anyone, for that matter.

why's that?

[rodi]

because it is not the camera that takes the photo.

[UdubBadger]

hahahaha... while that is very true, you can't have a well thought out picture look as good as it can without the right equipment

[rodi]

that couldn't be further from the truth.

[UdubBadger]

prove me wrong then

[rodi]

give Winogrand a disposable camera with ages-old expired film.
give Cartier-Bresson a 50-year old yashica.
... Capa a pin-hole camera made from cardboard.

you've already proven yourself wrong.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by rodi

give Winogrand a disposable camera with ages-old expired film.
give Cartier-Bresson a 50-year old yashica.
... Capa a pin-hole camera made from cardboard.

you've already proven yourself wrong.

yeah but that is subjective because they are different styles and looks of photos.

I'm saying show me pictures of the same thing taken by the same person, 1 with a nice expensive full frame digital and one with a cheap PS and then tell me the camera doesn't matter. Of course the full frame picture is going to look better.

[rodi]

a good photographer can take better photos with a holga than a chump can with money and a 5D mark II. or a 1DsIII, for that matter.

[UdubBadger]

and so we are assuming everyone here is a chump or what?

and if so, wouldn't a chumps picture come out better on a 5d mk2 than on a d40?